> As Derek has
> pointed out, I'm yet far from reaching a point where I should worry
> about that :)
_If_ you understand Haskell but not monads, I think it is entirely legitimate
to start with the implementation and then proceed to the uses. A bottom-up
approach instead of a top-down approach.
This is the approach of Will Partain's old 'country boys guide to
monads' (which I can't find a copy of). He started with examples of
non-monadic code where you couldn't see what was going on because of all the
'plumbing' required to make sure you had a supply of fresh names here and a
current substitution there and showed how a monad could cleanup the plumbing.
Of course, this only works if you've written enough of the right kind of code
that the examples make sense...
--
Alastair Reid www.haskell-consulting.com